Remko P. Bosgraaf

Comparative performance of novel self-sampling methods in detecting high-risk human papillomavirus in 30,130 women not attending cervical screening.

We determined whether the participation rate for a brush‐based cervicovaginal self‐sampling device is noninferior to the participation rate for a lavage‐based one for testing for hrHPV (high‐risk human papillomavirus). Additionally, positivity rates for hrHPV, the detection rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 or worse (CIN2+/3+), and user comfort were compared. A total of 35,477 non‐responders of the regular cervical screening program aged 33–63 years were invited to participate. Eligible women (n = 30,130) were randomly assigned to receive either a brush‐based or a lavage‐based device, and a questionnaire for reporting user convenience. Self‐sampling responders testing hrHPV‐positive were invited for a physician‐taken sample for cytology; triage‐positive women were referred for colposcopy. A total of 5,218 women participated in the brush‐based sampling group (34.6%) and 4809 women in the lavage‐based group (31.9%), i.e. an absolute difference of 2.7% (95%CI 1.8–4.2). The hrHPV‐positivity rates in the two groups were identical (8.3%, relative risk (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.87–1.13). The detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ in the brush group (2.0% for CIN2+; 1.3% for CIN3+) was similar to that in the lavage group (1.9% for CIN2+; 1.0% for CIN3+) with a cumulative RR of 1.01, 95%CI 0.83–1.24 for CIN2+ and 1.25, 95%CI 0.92–1.70 for CIN3+. The two self‐sampling devices performed similarly in user comfort. In conclusion, offering a brush‐based device to non‐responders is noninferior to offering a lavage‐based device in terms of participation. The two self‐sampling methods are equally effective in detecting hrHPV, CIN2+/CIN3+ and are both well accepted.

Validation of the FAM19A4/mir124-2 DNA methylation test for both lavage- and brush-based self-samples to detect cervical (pre)cancer in HPV-positive women

Objectives DNA methylation analysis of cancer-related genes is a promising tool for HPV-positive women to identify those with cervical (pre)cancer (CIN3+) in need of treatment. However, clinical performance of methylation markers can be influenced by the sample type utilized. We describe a multiplex quantitative methylation-specific PCR that targets FAM19A4 and mir124-2 loci, to detect CIN3+ using both HPV-positive lavage- and brush self-samples. Methods We determined methylation thresholds for clinical classification using HPV-positive training sets comprising lavage self-samples of 182 women (including 40 with CIN3+) and brush self-samples of 224 women (including 61 with CIN3+). Subsequently, independent HPV-positive validation sets of 389 lavage self-samples (including 78 with CIN3+), and 254 brush self-samples (including 72 with CIN3+) were tested using the preset thresholds. Furthermore, the clinical performance of combined methylation analysis and HPV16/18 genotyping was determined. Results Training set analysis revealed similar FAM19A4 and mir124-2 thresholds for both self-sample types to yield highest CIN3+ sensitivity at 70% specificity. Validation set analysis resulted in a CIN3+ sensitivity of 70.5% (95%CI: 60.4–80.6) at a specificity of 67.8% (95%CI: 62.7–73.0) for lavage self-samples, and a CIN3+ sensitivity of 69.4% (95%CI: 58.8–80.1) at a 76.4% (95%CI: 70.2–82.6) specificity for brush self-samples. In combination with HPV16/18 genotyping, CIN3+ sensitivity and specificity were 88.5% (95%CI: 81.4–95.6) and 46.0% (95%CI: 40.4–51.5) for lavage self-samples, and 84.7% (95%CI: 76.4–93.0) and 54.9% (95%CI: 47.7–62.2) for brush self-samples. Conclusions FAM19A4/mir124-2 methylation analysis performs equally well in HPV-positive lavage- and brush self-samples to identify women with CIN3+. In combination with HPV16/18 genotyping, significantly higher CIN3+ sensitivities are obtained, at decreased specificity.

Methylation marker analysis and HPV16/18 genotyping in high-risk HPV positive self-sampled specimens to identify women with high grade CIN or cervical cancer

OBJECTIVES Methylation marker analysis using bi-marker panel MAL/miR-124-2 is a promising triage test for identifying cervical (pre)cancer in high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) positive women. Bi-marker panel MAL/miR-124-2 can be applied directly on self-sampled cervico-vaginal material and its sensitivity is non-inferior to that of cytology, yet at the cost of more colposcopy referrals. Our objective was to increase specificity of MAL/miR-124-2 methylation analysis by varying the assay thresholds and adding HPV16/18 genotyping. METHODS 1019 hrHPV-positive women were selected from a randomized controlled self-sampling trial (PROHTECT-3; 33-63 years, n=46,001) and nine triage strategies with methylation testing of MAL/miR-124-2 and HPV16/18 genotyping were evaluated. The methylation assay threshold was set at four different predefined levels which correspond with clinical specificities for end-point cervical intra-epithelial grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) of 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80%. RESULTS The CIN3+ sensitivity of methylation analysis decreased (73.5 to 44.9%) while specificity increased (47.2 to 83.4%) when increasing the assay threshold. CIN3+ sensitivity and specificity of HPV16/18 genotyping were 68.0% and 65.6%, respectively. Combined methylation analysis at threshold-80 and HPV16/18 genotyping yielded similar CIN3+ sensitivity as that of methylation only at threshold-50 (77.6%) with an increased specificity (54.8%). CONCLUSIONS Combined triage by MAL/miR-124-2 methylation analysis with threshold-80 and HPV16/18 genotyping reaches high CIN3+ sensitivity with increased specificity to identify women with cervical (pre)cancer among HPV self-sample positive women. The combined strategy is attractive as it is fully molecular and identifies women at the highest risk of cervical (pre)cancer because of strongly elevated methylation levels and/or HPV16/18 positivity.

DNA methylation analysis in self-sampled brush material as a triage test in hrHPV-positive women

Background:Primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in cervical cancer screening shows relatively low specificity, which makes triage testing necessary. In this study, DNA methylation analysis was compared with cytology for triage testing in hrHPV-positive women. Moreover, feasibility of DNA methylation analysis directly on brush-based self-sampled specimens was assessed.Methods:Non-responding women from population-based screening were invited to self-collect a cervico-vaginal specimen for hrHPV testing; hrHPV-positive women were referred to a physician for triage liquid-based cytology. DNA methylation analysis was performed on 128 hrHPV-positive physician-collected triage samples and 50 matched brush self-samples with QMSP for C13ORF18, EPB41L3, JAM3 and TERT.Results:In physician-taken triage material, DNA methylation analysis of JAM3 showed the highest combined specificity (88%) and sensitivity (82%) for detection of CIN3+, whereas cytology showed a specificity of 48% and a sensitivity of 91%. Out of 39 women with abnormal cytology and normal histology (false-positive by cytology), 87% were negative for JAM3 and 90% for C13ORF18 methylation. Agreement between DNA methylation analysis performed directly on the matched self-sampled material and physician-taken samples was 88% for JAM3 (κ=0.75, P<0.001) and 90% for C13ORF18 (κ=0.77; P<0.001).Conclusions:DNA methylation analysis as a triage test in hrHPV-positive women is an attractive alternative to cytology. Furthermore, DNA methylation is feasible directly on brush-based self-samplers and showed good correlation with matched physician-taken samples. Direct molecular triage on self-collected specimens could optimise the screening program, especially for non-responders, as this would eliminate the need for an additional physician-taken scraping for triage testing.

Reasons for non-attendance to cervical screening and preferences for HPV self-sampling in Dutch women

OBJECTIVES High attendance rates in cervical screening are essential for effective cancer prevention. Offering HPV self-sampling to non-responders increases participation rates. The objectives of this study were to determine why non-responders do not attend regular screening, and why they do or do not participate when offered a self-sampling device. METHODS A questionnaire study was conducted in the Netherlands from October 2011 to December 2012. A total of 35,477 non-responders were invited to participate in an HPV self-sampling study; 5347 women did opt out. Finally, 30,130 women received a questionnaire and self-sampling device. RESULTS The analysis was based on 9484 returned questionnaires (31.5%) with a self-sample specimen, and 682 (2.3%) without. Among women who returned both, the main reason for non-attendance to cervical screening was that they forgot to schedule an appointment (3068; 32.3%). The most important reason to use the self-sampling device was the opportunity to take a sample in their own time-setting (4763; 50.2%). A total of 30.9% of the women who did not use the self-sampling device preferred after all to have a cervical smear taken instead. CONCLUSIONS Organisational barriers are the main reason for non-attendance in regular cervical screening. Important reasons for non-responders to the regular screening to use a self-sampling device are convenience and self-control.

The current position and the future perspectives of cervical cancer screening.

Cervical screening programs for detecting cancer and precancer have dramatically reduced the incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer since the 1960s. The efficacy of the screening programs depends on participation and the accuracy of the screening tests. Unfortunately, the participation rates are suboptimal; more than half the women with cervical cancer have not or have only sporadically been screened. Increasing participation is the best way of maximizing the program’s benefit. Furthermore, cytology screening lacks high sensitivity for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (≥CIN2). High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) screening is more sensitive in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia than cytology screening, but less specific, so that additional triage testing is still mandatory. The aim of this article is to reflect on the efficacy of current cervical cancer screening and on promising future screening strategies with primary hrHPV testing and additional triage strategies for hrHPV-positive screening results.

Follow-up of high-risk HPV positive women by combined cytology and bi-marker CADM1/MAL methylation analysis on cervical scrapes

OBJECTIVES Triage of HPV screen-positive women is needed to identify those with underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 or worse (CIN2/3+). Presently, cytology on a physician-taken cervical scrape is mostly accepted as triage test, but needs follow-up testing in order not to miss severe disease. Here, we evaluated the performance of combined cytology and bi-marker CADM1/MAL-methylation analysis as triage test on physician-taken cervical scrapes of HPV positive women. METHODS In this post-hoc analysis, we used 364 left-over HPV positive cytology triage samples of participants of a randomized controlled trial (PROHTECT-3: n=46,001) performed in population-based cervical screening. Study endpoints were CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection. Cytology testing with and without methylation marker analysis was evaluated with regard to sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and referral rate. RESULTS Bi-marker CADM1/MAL-methylation positivity increased proportionally with severity of underlying lesions. Overall, cytology and bi-marker CADM1/MAL-methylation analysis yielded similar performances with regard to CIN3+ detection, yet in combination a significantly higher sensitivity for CIN3+ (88.7%) was obtained at a specificity of 53.6% and a colposcopy referral rate of 53.6%. The combined strategy detected all six cervical cancers, whereas triage by cytology alone failed to detect two of them. CONCLUSIONS Cytology and bi-marker CADM1/MAL-methylation analysis perform complementary for CIN2+/CIN3+ detection when used as triage tool on cervical scrapes of HPV positive women. This approach not only results in a higher CIN3+ sensitivity than cytology triage with an acceptable referral rate, but also seems to reduce the risk of missing cervical cancers and advanced high-grade lesions.

High-risk human papillomavirus detection in self-sampling compared to physician-taken smear in a responder population of the Dutch cervical screening: Results of the VERA study

In 2017 the cervical cancer screening program in The Netherlands will be revised. Cervical smears will primarily be tested for the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) instead of cytology, and vaginal self-sampling will be offered to non-responders. This includes a potential risk that part of the women who would otherwise opt for a cervical smear will wait for self-sampling. However, self-sampling for hrHPV in a responder population has never been studied yet. The aim of this study was to investigate the applicability and accuracy of self-sampling in detecting hrHPV in a screening responder population. A total of 2049 women, aged 30-60years, participating in the screening program in The Netherlands were included from April 2013 to May 2015. After they had their cervical smear taken, women self-collected a cervicovaginal sample with a brush-based device, the Evalyn Brush. Both the cervical smear and self-sample specimen were tested with the COBAS 4800 HPV platform. The hrHPV prevalence was 8.0% (95% CI 6.9-9.2) among the physician-taken samples, and 10.0% (95% CI 8.7-11.3) among the self-samples. There was 96.8% (95% CI 96.0-97.5) concordance of hrHPV prevalence between self-samples and physician-taken samples. Women in our study evaluated self-sampling as convenient (97.1%), user-friendly (98.5%), and 62.8% preferred self-sampling over a physician-taken sampling for the next screening round. In conclusion, self-sampling showed high concordance with physician-taken sampling for hrHPV detection in a responder screening population and highly acceptable to women. Implementation of HPV-self-sampling for the responder population as a primary screening tool may be considered.

Triage of high-risk HPV positive women in cervical cancer screening.

ABSTRACT Introduction: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing is expected to replace cytology as primary screening method for cervical cancer screening in an increasing number of countries. The high sensitivity of hrHPV testing is combined with a limited specificity which makes triaging of hrHPV positive women necessary. As an ideal triage method does not yet exist, an optimal triage strategy for hrHPV positive women based on current knowledge should be obtained. The aim of this article is to present an overview of available options for triage of hrHPV positive women, with their strengths and limitations and possible future opportunities. Areas covered: Current knowledge on morphological biomarkers, molecular biomarkers and combined triage strategies will be discussed to give an overview of the state-of-the-art on triaging hrHPV positive women. The literature search was limited to studies on triage strategies for hrHPV positive women. Expert commentary: Experience with morphology-based biomarkers makes these a valuable triage method. However, they lack the ability of differentiating productive from transforming infections. Molecular biomarkers are objective, highly reproducible, can be used in high throughput testing, and show promising results. With more extensive knowledge on these molecular markers, cervical cancer screening may transform to a full molecular screening in the future.

The effect of video information on anxiety levels in women attending colposcopy: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Objective: The aim was to investigate whether additional information, in video form, reduces anxiety, depression and pain levels in women referred for colposcopy. Material and methods: Between September 2012 and March 2015, 136 patients referred for colposcopy were randomized into two study arms. Group A received video information in addition to the regular information leaflet, and group B (control group) received only the regular information leaflet. The patients were requested to complete standardized online questionnaires. The first online questionnaire (T1) was pre-randomization, and was completed at home, 5 days prior to the appointment. The second online questionnaire (T2) was completed directly before the colposcopy appointment, and the last online questionnaire (T3) was completed directly following colposcopy at the out-patient clinic. The questionnaires included the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) to assess pain. Results: The STAI state anxiety score was high (44.6), but there was no significant difference in STAI, HADS and NRS between the two groups at the three measuring points. A post hoc analysis showed that women with a generally higher baseline anxiety trait had significantly lower HADS anxiety levels following video information. Conclusions: Additional information (video) before colposcopy did not significantly reduce anxiety, depression, and expected or experienced pain, as measured by the STAI, HADS and NRS in patients attending their first colposcopy appointment. However, most patients positively appreciated the video information, which may reduce the anxiety of extremely anxious patients.